#ΕλιΚιτιμ

[eli-kittim]

The Sign of Jonah: Christ’s Death at Sea

By Eli Kittim

Jonah is the English form of the Hebrew name Yona, which is rendered as Ionas in the Greek. The Ionians were the ancient Greeks (see Josephus Antiquities I, 6). So Ionia means Greece, and an ancient citizen of Ion was called Ionas. So Jonah (Ionas), who is a type of Christ, is depicted as a Greek figure. Let us not forget that Jonah was going to Tarshish, which has been identified as Ancient Greece (see the undermentioned article).

What is more, it seems as if the sign of Jonah is a typological metaphor for Christ’s death and resurrection that is employed by the evangelists in order to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. But, as I will show, it also represents an event in prophetic history, although this has not as yet taken place. In the gospel narrative, Matthew connects Jesus’ death to that of Jonah, after the latter’s body was cast into the sea. Matthew 12:39-40 (NASB) reads thusly:

“An evil and adulterous generation craves a

sign; and so no sign will be given to it except

the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as

Jonah was in the stomach of the sea

monster for three days and three nights, so

will the Son of Man be in the heart of the

earth for three days and three nights.”

We find analogous parallels and motifs in the Psalms as well. For example, Psalm 69:1-2 reads:

“Save me, God, For the waters have

threatened my life. I have sunk in deep mud,

and there is no foothold; I have come into

deep waters, and a flood overflows me.”

Similarly, Psalm 18:16 says:

“He sent from on high, He took me;

He drew me out of many waters.”

Ephesians 4:9 says that Jesus “descended into the lower parts of the earth.” That is, he descended to the ocean floor. The average depth of the ocean floor is approximately 12,000 feet. So, Matthew is drawing comparative conclusions between Jonah’s and Jesus's death at sea. Let’s see what happened to Jonah. Jonah 1:15-17 says:

“So they picked up Jonah and hurled him

into the sea, and the sea stopped its raging.

… And the Lord designated a great fish to

swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the

stomach of the fish for three days and three

nights.”

The typological sign of the resurrection is suggested in Jonah 2:10:

“Then the Lord commanded the fish, and it

vomited Jonah up onto the dry land.”

This, then, is the sign of Jonah——which says in effect that God literally “drew … [him] out of many waters”——that Matthew applies to Jesus (cf. Isaiah 43:2)! This is reminiscent of another messianic type who was named “Moses” by Pharaoh's daughter “because … [she] drew him out of the water” (Exod. 2:10). It is also the sign of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I will not focus on the phrase “three days and three nights” because it will divert us from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that it need not refer to a literal three-day period. It seems to be a figure of speech that may signify the three-year great tribulation period.

At any rate, the so-called “sign of Jonah” is not simply a metaphor or a unique sign that would establish the deity of Christ, but it is also a factual event! And although I agree with C.S. Lewis who held that Jonah is ahistorical, nevertheless, I believe that the sign of Jonah, as a type, represents the literal, actual death of its antitype: the Messiah! We know that Jonah did not survive. The Book of Jonah 2:2-6 explicitly says that Jonah, after being hurled into the sea, cried out to God “from the depth of Sheol”:

“I called out of my distress to the Lord, And

He answered me. I called for help from the

depth of Sheol; You heard my voice. For You

threw me into the deep, Into the heart of the

seas, And the current flowed around me. All

Your breakers and waves passed over me.

So I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your

sight.’ … Water encompassed me to the

point of death. The deep flowed around me,

Seaweed was wrapped around my head. …

But You have brought up my life from the

pit, Lord my God.”

It’s important to note that the terms “pit” and “Sheol,” in the Hebrew Bible, are references to the realm of the dead (see e.g. Job 7:9; Ps. 49:14-15; 89:48). The resurrection is depicted in Jonah’s own words: “You have brought up my life from the pit, Lord my God.”

So it appears as if the sign of Jonah is also the sign of Christ’s death. Just as Tim Mackie (co-founder of the Bibleproject) explains in one of his sessions that there is a literary redundancy of the word “hurled” in the Jonah text, especially regarding its main character Jonah who is literally “hurled” into the water, I believe that Christ is similarly “hurled” into the water and eaten by a shark. Hence the symbolism of being born in a manger or a feeding trough. This, of course, is closely related to the last supper (i.e. the sacrament of the Eucharist), the idea that Jesus is literally consumed. There are also overtones of Noah's flood in this parallel (cf. Matthew 24:37), as well as of Osiris, who also drowned and whose coffin (like the Ark) floated in the sea (cf. the story of Perseus who was also cast into the sea in a wooden chest).

Another key point is that, according to the Hebrew text, Jonah's fish is not a whale but rather some kind of “great fish". Through special revelation, this appears to be a shark. And the term “swallow”——in the clause, “the Lord designated a great fish to swallow Jonah”——is a euphemism for a great fish feasting on Jonah and consequently fatally injuring him. This, of course, ties in with the idea that we die and are reborn by going under water (Immersion baptism), a symbolic ritual that is unique to Christianity! Hence why Immersion baptism is not only tied to Jonah but is also symbolic of Christ’s death, being re-enacted in the New Testament through the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist!

This study of Jonah takes us back to the origin of the Christian fish symbol, the so-called “ichthys” (ἰχθύς), which is now known as the Jesus fish. And despite the acrostic use of this word: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ (i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour)—— nevertheless, the fish symbolism has a variety of other theological overtones in the New Testament, such as the Feeding of the 5,000 with 2 fishes and 5 loaves, as well as the Feeding of the 4,000 with seven loaves of bread and a few small fish, not to mention that Jesus calls his disciples "fishers of men." That is precisely why Immersion baptism in the early church signified a parallel between fish and converts (i.e. born again Christians). The early Christian theologian Tertullian explained it thusly:

“we, little fishes, after the image of our

Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water."

[elikittim]

Jesus vs Paul: Different Views of Salvation?

I recently saw a few short YouTube Clips in which Bart Ehrman repeatedly raised the issue of Biblical contradiction by trying to pit the teachings of Jesus against those of Paul. According to Ehrman, Jesus neither taught atonement nor belief in it for salvation, whereas Paul taught the exact opposite, namely, that belief in Jesus’ death (as an atonement) was a necessary part of redemption.

Ehrman also asserts that Jesus’ teaching on salvation requires keeping the commandments, whereas Paul’s teaching is just the opposite, namely, the abrogation of the commandments of the Law. Since I agree with his view of Paul, I will not focus on Paul’s but rather on Jesus’ teaching.

Just to quickly recap, the abrogation of the Law is not just in Paul. It’s all over the New Testament. Read the anonymous letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9. It’s all about how Christ’s sacrifice is greater than the Temple sacrifices or the Law of Moses. Hebrews 8:13 reads thusly: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one [the Law] obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”

Hebrews 9:15 puts Christ’s atonement in perspective:

“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Paul also states that Christians don’t need to observe the Jewish dietary guidelines, festivals, Law, or Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16). Paul says categorically and unequivocally that we are saved by Grace, not by the Law. In Galatians 2:16, Paul writes: “know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” In Galatians 2:21, Paul vehemently asserts: “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Paul thinks that you will not be saved if you hold on to the Law as your ultimate authority (see e.g. Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:11; Ephesians 2:8). Ehrman seems to agree that this was Paul’s teaching on salvation. So let’s now look at Jesus’ teaching to see if it differs from Paul’s.

Many interpreters, particularly those steeped in the Old Testament, often misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent what Jesus says concerning his relation to the Law of Moses. For example, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says the following: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Here, Jesus means that he himself fulfills the Law through his sacrifice and death, which according to Hebrews 9:11-15 is the ultimate atonement for sin. Jesus’ sacrifice was foreshadowed by the Temple sacrifices of animals. Jesus, however, does not mean that his followers must follow the Old Testament Law and commandments in order to be saved. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 16:6, as well as in verse 12, Jesus explicitly teaches His disciples not to follow the Law or “the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

“John makes sure that we know that Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. The Pharisees were the most rigorously religious of all the Jewish groups. To this one, Jesus says (in verse 3), “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” And even more personally in verse 7: “You must be born again.” So one of John’s points is: All of Nicodemus’s religion, all of his amazing Pharisaic study and discipline and law-keeping, cannot replace the need for the new birth. In fact, they may well make more obvious the need for the new birth.”

John Piper

Did Jesus keep the Law? Not at all. He actually broke all the Laws and the Sabbaths (eating with unwashed hands, eating with sinners, cleansing the temple, working on the Sabbath, etc.), and that’s why the Jews wanted to kill him (Matthew 9:10-11; 15:1-2, 12; see also John 5:18)! He often argued with Pharisees, telling them that law-keeping doesn’t amount to anything. Read Matthew 23, especially verse 13, which demonstrates that you cannot be saved by keeping the Law:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter it yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

Similarly, Matthew 23:25-28 demonstrates that the carnal nature is not eliminated or cleansed by the Law:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. … So you too, outwardly appear righteous to people, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

Incidentally, when Jesus speaks of keeping his commandments, he’s not referring to the dietary guidelines or the ceremonial or civil laws and sabbaths. He’s talking about his commands to love. And in order to distinguish them from law-keeping, he makes a distinct reference to the Holy Spirit that will enter inside every believer. In John 14:15-17, he states:

“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him,because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

This is echoed in Revelation 3:20. This verse is not talking about having dinner at someone’s house. It’s referring to regeneration, rebirth, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” In Luke 24:46-49, Jesus demonstrates that salvation can only occur with the arrival of the Holy Spirit:

“So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. … And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

The commandment of Christ can be summed up in the word Love. 1 John 4:7-8 reads:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

This passage tells us that we can only receive this love if we have “been born of God.” This is a direct reference to rebirth! That’s the only way to “know God.” And God is love. You can’t know this or understand this by simply relying on your own behavior or performance. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites because although they followed the Law externally, yet internally they were wicked devils (see Matthew 15:7-14). Following the Law neither changes your carnal nature, nor requires a Messiah! A Christian is saved by being born-again in Christ (John 3:3; 3:5; Acts 2:1-4), not by dietary laws, commandments, or Sabbaths, which have all been abrogated (see Colossians 2:16)! These are useless in cleansing your heart. Only rebirth makes you a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)! What is more, Romans 8:9 makes it abundantly clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.” Obeying the Law has absolutely nothing to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3:3 that you can not be saved unless you are born again: “Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again’ “. Bottom line, we are saved by faith, not by works of the law!

Did Jesus ever speak about his death as an atonement? Yes, of course: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Elsewhere he says: “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27). This demonstrates that the purpose of Jesus’ life was to die as a ransom for sin: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Peter follows suit and explains the significance of Jesus’ atoning death in 1 Peter 2:24: “He Himself brought our sins in His body up on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness; by His wounds you were healed.” 1 Peter 3:18 similarly says: “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” In Matthew 26:27-28, Jesus himself acknowledges and affirms that his death is the atonement for the forgiveness of sins:

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’ “

If that’s not atonement language, I don’t know what is. Thus, contrary to the assertions made by Bart Ehrman, both Jesus and Paul hold the same views on salvation, namely, that Jesus’ death is an atonement for sins and that salvation can only happen when we are born again through the Holy Spirit.

[eli-kittim]

The Bible Attributes the Hidden Name of God to Greece

Eli kittim

The Greek New Testament Unlocks the Meaning of God’s Name

The meaning of God’s name (YHVH) was originally incoherent and indecipherable until the appearance of the Greek New Testament. In Isaiah 46:11, God says that he will call the Messiah “from a distant country” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). Similarly, in Matt. 21:43, Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. That’s why Isaiah 61:9 says that the Gentiles will be the blessed posterity of God (through the messianic seed). Paul also says categorically and unequivocally, “It is not the children of the flesh [the Jews] … but the children of the promise [who] are regarded as descendants [of Israel]” (Rom. 9:6-8).

These passages demonstrate why the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. In fact, most of the New Testament books were composed in Greece. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, and most of the epistles address Greek communities. Not to mention that the New Testament authors used the Greek Old Testament as their Inspired text and copied extensively from it. That’s also why Christ attributed the divine I AM to the Greek language (alpha and omega). Now why did all this happen? Was it a mere coincidence or an accident, or is it because God’s name is somehow associated with Greece? Let’s explore this question further.

YHVH (I AM)

Initially, God did not disclose the meaning of his name to Moses (Exod. 3:14), but only the status of his ontological being: “I Am.” The four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHVH) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, and it’s pronounced as yahva. In Judaism, this name is forbidden from being vocalized or even pronounced.

Hebrew was a consonantal language. Vowels and cantillation marks were devised much later by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Thus, to call the divine name Yahva is a rough approximation. We really don’t know how to properly pronounce the name or what it actually means. But, through linguistic and biblical research, we can propose a scholarly hypothesis.

God Explicitly Identifies Himself with the Language of the Greeks

Since God’s name (the divine “I AM”) was revealed in the New Testament vis-à-vis the first and last letters of the Greek writing system (“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” Rev. 22:13), then it necessarily must reflect a Greek name. The letters Alpha and Omega constitute “the beginning and the end” of the Greek alphabet. Put differently, the creator of the universe (Heb. 1:2) explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks! That explains why the New Testament was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. That’s also why we are told “how God First concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name” (Acts 15:14):

“And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, … ‘THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME’ “ (Acts 15:15-17).

This is a groundbreaking statement because it demonstrates that God’s name is not derived from Hebraic but rather Gentile sources. The Hebrew Bible asserts the exact same thing:

“All the Gentiles… are called by My name” (Amos 9:12).

The New Testament clearly tells us that God identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” (Rev. 1:8). In the following verse, John is “on the [Greek] island called Patmos BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9 italics mine). We thus begin to realize why the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, namely, to reflect the Greek God: τοῦ μεγάλου θεο��� καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃ (Titus 2:13)! Incidentally, God is never once called Yahva in the Greek New Testament. Rather, he is called Lord (kurios). Similarly, Jesus is never once called Yeshua. He is called Ἰησοῦς, a name which both Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) and Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered to be derived from Greek sources.

Yahva: Semantic and Phonetic Implications

If my hypothesis is accurate, we must find evidence of a Greek linguistic element within the Hebrew name of God (i.e. Yahva) as it was originally revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. Indeed, we do! In the Hebrew language, the term “Yahvan” represents the Greeks (Josephus Antiquities I, 6). Therefore, it is not difficult to see how the phonetic and grammatical mystery of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH, commonly pronounced as Yahva) is related to the Hebrew term Yahvan, which refers to the Greeks. In fact, the Hebrew names for both God and Greece (Yahva/Yahvan) are virtually indistinguishable from one another, both grammatically and phonetically! The only difference is in the Nun Sophit (Final Nun), which stands for "Son of" (Hebrew ben). Thus, the Tetragrammaton plus the Final Nun (Yahva + n) can be interpreted as “Son of God.” This would explain why strict injunctions were given that the theonym must remain untranslatable under the consonantal name of God (YV). The Divine Name can only be deciphered with the addition of vowels, which not only point to “YahVan,” the Hebrew name for Greece, but also anticipate the arrival of the Greek New Testament!

There’s further evidence for a connection between the Greek and Hebrew names of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In a few Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is actually translated in Greek as ΙΑΩ “IAO” (aka Greek Trigrammaton). In other words, the theonym Yahva is translated into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see Lev. 4:27 LXX manuscript 4Q120). This fragment is dated to the 1st century BC. Astoundingly, the name ΙΑΩΝ is the name of Greece (aka Ἰάων/Ionians/IAONIANS), the earliest literary records of whom can be found in the works of Homer (Gk. Ἰάονες; iāones) and also in the writings of the Greek poet Hesiod (Gk. Ἰάων; iāōn). Bible scholars concur that the Hebrew name Yahvan represents the Iaonians; that is to say, Yahvan is Ion (aka Ionia, meaning “Greece”).

We find further evidence that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is translated as ΙΑΩ (IAO) in the writings of the church fathers. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B.D. Eerdmans, Diodorus Siculus refers to the name of God by writing Ἰαῶ (Iao). Irenaeus reports that the Valentinians use Ἰαῶ (Iao). Origen of Alexandria also employs Ἰαώ (Iao). Theodoret of Cyrus writes Ἰαώ (Iao) as well to refer to the name of God.

Summary

Therefore, the hidden name of God in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Hebrew Bible seemingly represents Greece! The ultimate revelation of God’s name is disclosed in the Greek New Testament by Jesus Christ who identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Rev. 1:8). In retrospect, we can trace this Greek name back to the Divine “I am” in Exodus 3:14!

[eli-kittim]

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Eli Kittim

The canonical epistles strongly indicate that the narratives concerning the revelation of Jesus in the New Testament (NT) gospel literature are proleptic accounts. That is to say, the NT gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently accomplished. The term “prolepsis,” here, refers to the anachronistic representation of Jesus’ generation as if existing before its actual historical time. Simply put, the gospels are written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. In other words, these are accounts about events that haven’t happened yet, which are nevertheless narrated as if they have already occurred.

By contrast, the epistles demonstrate that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek NT Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation! In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1.20; cf. Heb. 9.26b) are clearly set in the future, including his birth, death, and resurrection (see Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; Rev 12.5). It is as though NT history is written in advance (cf. Isa. 46.10)!

The Proleptic versus the Prophesied Jesus

The historical view is extremely problematic, involving nothing less than a proleptic interpretation of Jesus. It gives rise to numerous chronological discrepancies that cannot be easily reconciled with eschatological contexts of critical importance. What is even more troubling is that it evidently contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-time Messiah and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous (e.g. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1—2; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 2 Thess. 2.1—3, 7—8; Heb. 1.1—2; 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev 12.5, 7—10).

Intertextuality in the Gospels

The canonical gospel accounts add another level of intertextual reference to the Old Testament (OT). Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the OT and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called “intertextuality,” meaning a heavy dependence of the NT literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Ps. 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isa. 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things.

There is only One Coming, not Two

The belief in the two comings of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as two separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4). In 2 Thess 2, the author implores us not to be deceived by any rumors claiming that the Lord has already appeared: “to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here” (v. 2; cf. v. 1). His disclaimer insists that these conventions are divisive in view of the fact that they profess to be Biblically based, “as though from us” (v. 2), even though this is not the official message of Scripture.

Why Does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

Why do the NT authors refer to Christ’s future coming as a “revelation”? The actual Greek word used is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The term revelation indicates the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure. Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. Thus, a revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice.

Accordingly, the NT verses, which refer to the future revelation of Christ, never mention a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought. See the following verses:

1 Cor. 1.7-8; 4.5; 15.23; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1.10; 2.1-2; 1 Tim. 6.14; Titus 2.13; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev 1.1; 22.20.

In the aforementioned verses, a second coming is nowhere indicated. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB). None of the NT authors refer to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. It’s as though these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world! The takeaway is that the NT is an apocalypse. It’s not a history.

[eli-kittim]

A Response to Tiff Shuttlesworth’s “The Last Trumpet in Revelation”

Eli Kittim

Tiff Shuttlesworth is the President/Founder of Lost Lamb Evangelistic Association at Northpoint Bible College and Seminary. He is also a well-known pastor and Bible prophecy teacher who holds to the pretribulational view of the rapture. His videos on bible prophecy are very popular on YouTube and elsewhere. Recently, I came across a video by Tiff Shuttlesworth, entitled, “The Last Trumpet in Revelation.” In that video, Shuttlesworth took issue with the mid and post tribulation rapture views and publicly denounced them as “poor scholarship.”

In this video, Tiff Shuttlesworth says that the last (or 7th) trumpet in Rev 11:15 is not the same as “the last trumpet” in 1 Cor. 15:51-52, and that it also bears no relation to “the trumpet of God” in 1 Thess. 4:16-17, chronologically or otherwise. He is in error. They are the same. He offers some tendentious reasons why this is so, but they are all based on a basic misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. He says that 1 Cor. 15 is talking about the church, whereas Rev 11 is referring to the judgments of God, and he claims that not only is the timing of these events different but also “the last trumpet” in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 is not the same as the last (or 7th) trumpet in Rev 11.15. As will be shown, this is not the case. The reason he tries to dissociate the last trumpet of 1 Cor. 15:51-52 from the 7th and final trumpet in the Book of Revelation is because Rev ch. 11 implies that the last trumpet takes place AFTER the great tribulation, not before. It is similar to Matt. 24:29-31 (NASB) in which the rapture of the elect occurs AFTER, not before, the great tribulation. Notice that the rapture will begin “with a great trumpet blast” (italics mine):

“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. … and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

So, because Tiff Shuttlesworth is a pre-tribulationist, he obviously wants to dismiss this piece of evidence, which challenges his pre-tribulation rapture view. Naturally, he tries to argue that these passages are diametrically opposed to each other. But this is poor scholarship. As we dig deeper, we realize that they’re very much connected. Moreover, since they are inspired, we must read the books of the Bible in “canonical context,” rather than as separate books that are unrelated to each other.

It is interesting to note that Rev 11, just before introducing the 7th trumpet, mentions the rapture of the two witnesses. And it follows with a celebration of the church triumphant, in heaven, which foresees the reign of Christ. Interestingly enough, Rev 11 makes mention of the esteemed tribulation saints, otherwise known as “the twenty-four elders”——whom we know from chapter 4—-in order to inform us that the great tribulation, the general resurrection of the dead, and the rapture are in view. Revelation 11:18 reads thusly:

“and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints.”

This is a direct reference to the general resurrection of the dead, that we’re all familiar with from 1 Thess. 4:15-17, which happens simultaneously with the rapture, when the faithful will be rewarded with immortality and glory (theosis). They will shine. There is no other resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:1-2). This is it! Similarly, 1 Thess. 4:16-17 says that Christ will appear for the resurrection and the rapture with the sound of God’s trumpet:

“For the Lord Himself will descend … with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

First Corinthians 15:51-52 further clarifies that all this will take place “at the last trumpet”:

“Behold, I am telling you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”

So, when is the last trumpet? According to Rev 11:15, the last (or 7th) trumpet is blown during the time period when the Lord’s Messiah begins to reign over the entire world. So, it is obviously a period that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, not before. Rev 11:15-17 reads:

“Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.’ And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, ‘We give You thanks, Lord God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.’ “

[eli-kittim]

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

Read the PDF of my article, published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 13, no. 3 (2018).

[eli-kittim]

Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?

Koine Greek——the language in which Paul wrote his epistles——is interested in the so-called “aspect” (how), not in the “time” (when), of an event. First Corinthians 15:51 does not suggest specifically when the rapture & the resurrection will happen. And it strongly suggests that the plural pronoun “we” is referring to the dead, not to the readers who, by contrast, are alive in Corinth. The argument, therefore, that 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referring to an imminent eschatology is not supported by the original Greek text. What is more, if we compare the Pauline corpus with the eschatology of Matthew 24 & 2 Peter 3:10, as well as with the totality of scripture, it will become quite obvious that all these texts are talking about the distant future!

[eli-kittim]

The Priority of the Epistles

Eli Kittim

Principles of Interpretation

Using R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines from his book, Knowing Scripture, I will argue that there is a chronological discrepancy in the New Testament (NT) in which the timeline of Jesus’ life in the gospels is not the same as the one mentioned in the epistles. Specifically, the epistles contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. So I will argue that, based on principles of interpretation, priority must be given to the epistles. According to R.C. Sproul, exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature. Accordingly, I will argue that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. According to R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines, the gospels must be interpreted by the epistles.

“The Historical Narrative Must be

Interpreted by the Didactic”

— R.C. Sproul

Case in point. The epistles——which are the clearest teachings of the NT——apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19)! For example, according to the NT epistles, Jesus Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9:26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Similarly, just as Hebrews 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) clearly sets forth the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance “at the final point of time.” Given that the epistles are the more didactic portions of Scripture, and that the gospel narratives are not considered historical by many scholars, it would therefore seem hermeneutically legitimate to interpret the narrative by the didactic!

The Explicit & the Implicit

“The implicit is to be interpreted in light of

the explicit. Not the other way around”

— R.C. Sproul

But we have it completely backwards. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of Scripture that teach with clear and explicit statements. For example, in terms of Jesus’ appearance and death, Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says directly and clearly, “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is an explicit statement that not only shows the time of his coming (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) but also the purpose of his appearance, namely, to sacrifice himself in order to put away sin (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ⸀ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ). In both the Greek and English versions, the statement is very clear. Jesus’ death takes place at the consummation of the ages. We find a parallel passage in 1 Peter 1:20 (ASV):

“[Jesus] was foreknown indeed before

the foundation of the world, but was

manifested at the end of the times.”

These are straightforward, clear, and explicit teachings. To subordinate these explicit epistolary teachings of Scripture and to argue on the basis of implications drawn from the more obscure gospel narratives is a misuse of the Scripture. If we insist on the canonical context of the Bible, namely, that each book in the Old Testament (OT) & the NT is related to all the other books and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we have to be careful not to set these two divisions——namely, the gospels and the epistles——in opposition. The problem arises when we deduce certain things from the gospels, which then bring us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches in the epistles very clearly and very plainly.

“Our implications must always be measured

by and made subordinate to what the

Scriptures explicitly teach” — R.C. Sproul

The Totality of Scripture

“Every particular passage of Scripture must

be measured and interpreted against the

whole of Scripture” — R.C. Sproul

Let’s look at the gospel narratives and the didactic literature of the epistles and compare them. The didactic literature clearly demonstrates that the NT is an Apocalypse, whereas the gospels claim to be historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ Life, Death, and Resurrection. The first problem is that Bible scholars don’t consider the gospels as historical accounts, but rather view them as theological documents. The second problem is that the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels with regard to the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ by placing them in eschatological categories.

Now, let’s take the principle that “every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture” and apply it to the Messianic timeline. And let’s ask the question: according to Scripture, does the Messiah come to earth during the time of antiquity or in the end times? In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the OT & NT is consistent with the epistles rather than with the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. This can be proved with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX Daniel 12:1) says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” while the Theodotion (Daniel 12:1) has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (Daniel 12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn):

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all

will be made alive. But each in his own

order: Christ the first fruits, after that those

who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes

the end.”

What is more, Revelation 12:5 makes it clear that the messiah is born in the end times as a contemporary of the last world empire, which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (cf. Rev. 17:9-14). In fact, chapter 12 & verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, & the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation. Likewise, Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! And Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says EXPLICITLY——categorically and unequivocally——that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Rev 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” First Peter 1:10-11 also says that the NT prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10)!

[eli-kittim]

Eli of Kittim Author Page on Facebook

[eli-kittim]

El Kittim